Chapter 8: Midshipmen and Cadets are Young People and Future Leaders (Recommendations 16-18)

Key findings of Review

Given their age, most undergraduates enter ADFA without much ‘real world’ experience, with many having never lived away from home before.1 The differing levels of maturity of undergraduates, combined with the pressures of living, working and studying together, can present substantial risk factors for ADFA.

In particular, the Review findings indicated that:

  • A number of benefits may flow from the introduction of a single Service and work placement program for all Services. The primary benefit would be that undergraduates arrive at ADFA slightly older and with a greater level of maturity. In turn, this may decrease the likelihood of unacceptable behaviour.2
  • There is a ‘lack of comprehensive and effective mentoring opportunities for cadets’,3 particularly with respect to female undergraduates.
  • There have been instances of excessive consumption of alcohol among undergraduates which is an established risk factor for a range of inappropriate behaviours.4

In response, the Review made a number of recommendations designed to mitigate some of these risk factors.

In summary, the findings of the Audit indicate that:

  • Substantial work has been undertaken in the development of a feasibility study which outlines a range of options for a single Service and work placement program for each of the Services. The Services have decided not to implement any of the proposed options on the basis that they were not feasible. Having explored the single Service placement options, the Audit considers further measures should be developed to meet the underlying intent of the Recommendation.
  • The minimum entry age has been reviewed however it was decided that the age should not be changed due to recruitment imperatives.
  • Recruitment options to address life differentials of male and female undergraduates were considered and it was decided not to undertake any further actions. After consultation with the Audit further options are now being explored.
  • Options for a new mentoring program have been developed.5 As yet ADFA has not implemented the new program and no timetable for implementation has been provided.
  • The comprehensive approach to alcohol management is evidence of a concerted effort on the part of ADFA to address excessive alcohol consumption. The pricing regime has been reviewed and drink prices have been increased. In respect of alcohol testing, ADFA has increased testing in 2012 to a level that is unparalleled in previous years.

The Audit’s findings in respect of each recommendation follow.

Recommendation 16: The VCDF, in association with the Services:

  1. explore first year single service training and work placement for all ADFA cadets. Options regarding this process should be completed within 12 months of the release of this report. The preferred option should be implemented in 2013 in readiness for the 2014 ADFA intake
  2. review the minimum entry age to ADFA to ascertain whether it is appropriate
  3. explore a range of cadet recruitment options for ADFA which recognise the different life course of women compared to men.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Undergraduates arrive at ADFA with differing levels of maturity, often without experience of living away from home. This presents substantial risk factors for ADFA. It was considered that a one year immersion in the chosen Service, similar to the Navy NOYO program, would yield more mature undergraduates which may in turn reduce the prevalence of unacceptable behaviour. In recognition that men and women sometimes have different life courses, the Review also recommended that different entry points be considered which could provide a range of more flexible options for entry to ADFA.

Implementation action

The RIT facilitated a comprehensive feasibility study to develop and assess a range of different options for each of the Services.6

The feasibility study took a two phase approach. The first phase ‘focused on the common issues that each Service needed to address to ensure the practicality and financial viability of conducting Single Service Training and Work Placement (SST&WP).’7 This involved collecting information in respect of the resources that would be required, such as infrastructure, financial and staffing.8

The second phase ‘focused on options for SST&WP developed by each Service’. Pursuant to the relevant Minute ‘each Service appointed officers to investigate and report on the possibilities and means of meeting the Recommendation’.9 As part of the process, UNSW was consulted as the options developed would have required UNSW to compress the current degree structure and therefore to change the existing contract with ADFA for the provision of education.10

For each Service, a preferred option was selected by the member delegated11 to conduct the study for that Service and a recommendation was made to the relevant Service Chief. In summary, as stated in the feasibility study, the program was considered to be ‘possible and could be conducted’ however, ‘the Service Chiefs did not consider the initiative to be feasible’.12

Parts b) and c) of the Recommendation were also considered, but ultimately dismissed by the Services in the feasibility study. During consultation between the Audit and the RIT it was suggested that further work was required for part c). Further examination is now being undertaken and preliminary options are being developed.13

Audit findings

Recommendation 16 a)

It is apparent from documents provided and from discussions with ADFA and other personnel that significant effort was invested in developing the feasibility study. The work undertaken has been extensive, with the feasibility study spanning a number of months.14 The Audit acknowledges that while each Service decided not to implement any of the proposed options, the requirement of the Recommendation was for single Service options to be explored.

The options presented in the study have been addressed, with multiple options developed and closely analysed for each Service. However the Audit notes that the feasibility study contains significant discussion on the barriers to implementation.15

In light of the decisions by each of the Service Chiefs not to implement a program, the Audit’s primary concern is whether the intent of the Recommendation can be met through the introduction of other measures.16

In the feasibility study, Army refers to an ‘enhanced commissioning model’.17 This model “maintained the fundamentals of the current ADFA commissioning model but included a number of enhancements to meet the intent [of] Recommendation 16.” The study proceeds to list a number of enhancements which have been introduced since the ADFA Report was released.18

The Audit agrees that these enhancements in part address the intent of the Recommendation. However, they are not a direct response to Recommendation 16.

In respect of Army, the feasibility study states that ‘a number of opportunities also existed for future enhancements’.19 The Audit has not received any evidence that these additional opportunities have been investigated or pursued and their current status is therefore unclear.

Given that the feasibility study has not resulted in any change, the Audit recommends that ADFA (and the RIT) and the Services continue to investigate strategies to achieve the intent of the Recommendation.

Recommendation 16 b)

The minimum entry age was reviewed as part of the feasibility study. The analysis determined that:

Increasing the minimum entry age would be detrimental as Defence is competing with universities, the public sector, and industry for the ‘best and brightest’ school leavers. There was consensus that if the entry age for ADFA is raised, school leavers will gain employment or university places elsewhere and it is much less likely that they will leave their employment or university studies when they reach the revised entry age to ADFA.20

If the minimum entry age is to remain unchanged further emphasis should be given to meeting the intent of the Recommendation by developing strategies to minimise potential risks for young entrants.

Recommendation 16 c)

The Services looked briefly at this issue in the feasibility study and initially dismissed the prospect of making any changes.

Both Navy and Army did not explore this issue and deferred comments on the issue to Defence Force Recruiting, which has no specific plan for specific recruitment initiatives for ADFA which reflect the different life courses of women and men.21 Air Force briefly undertook some research to determine what the major life-course differences were between men and women and on the basis of that research declined to explore recruitment options. Their research found that:

the major life-course differential between women and men is motherhood. According to 2012 census data, the majority of women commence their families between the ages of 25 and 30. As their time at ADFA is usually over by age 25, Air Force was unsure of the necessity to develop recruitment options that ‘recognise different life courses’ at the stage of early adulthood. It was concluded that there are few ‘life stage differences’ between young women and men until the point of commencing parenthood.22

The Audit finds that the intent of this aspect of the Recommendation was not adequately addressed in the feasibility study.

This concern was discussed with ADFA and a further potential option was provided to the Audit.23 Instead of new recruits joining ADFA initially, the enrolment would be deferred for a period of years after which an ADFA posting would be allowed. This could accommodate either full time study or part time study combined with parental leave.24

The Audit accepts that this is not a model which ADFA could implement alone. However, the model represents an analysis of the life differentials, beyond those briefly raised and dismissed in the feasibility study, in a creative and different way. The proposal is only in its inception and whilst there is no indication to date from ADFA or the ADF that it will be pursued the Audit welcomes this creative thinking and the continuing development of options to meet the intent of the Recommendation.25

Recommendation 17: ADFA offer cadets a mentor, external to ADFA who may be drawn from a non-military background, to provide support and advice. Female cadets should be given the option to be placed with female mentors. Workplace-based mentoring programs targeting women that operate through universities, including UNSW, should be considered as a useful template.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Undergraduates arrive at ADFA with different maturity levels and varied life experiences. In combination with the difficulties that undergraduates face beginning a career in the military, there is a strong case for mentoring programs to provide support for undergraduates and to assist their development.

Implementation actions

The RIT has undertaken a review of existing mentoring programs and has provided the Audit with a mentoring options paper outlining two proposed options for a new program.26 The analysis of existing programs contains a classification of the categories of mentoring at ADFA and a gap analysis to determine where further mentoring is required. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Lucy Mentoring Program has also been examined.27 The options developed include:

  • Option one: a three day series of networking visits for female second year undergraduates.28

This involves three days of visits and face to face discussions with women in senior leadership positions in policing, mining and other external organisations. Topics could include balancing work and family, succeeding in male dominated environments, leading teams, when to compromise, handling difficult situations, and support networks.29

  • Option two: an annual networking forum for all second year cadets, male and female.30

This involves a visiting mentor to meet with all second year undergraduates, firstly to provide an address and secondly to be available for a series of focus groups and discussions with volunteer second year undergraduates.

The Audit has been advised, in response to Recommendation 10 b), that ADFA has begun a program of facilitating forums promoting women in the military.31 This is addressed in Recommendation 10.

Audit findings

The analysis of existing mentoring programs and the development of further mentoring options demonstrates a commitment by ADFA to address the Recommendation. The mentoring brief provided to the Audit is evidence that a substantial amount of work has been undertaken, however, to date neither of the developed options have been implemented. The delay means that enhanced mentoring was not available in 2012 and has not yet been agreed for 2013.32

With respect to the proposed options developed by ADFA, there are concerns about the differences between the intent of the Recommendation and the proposed models. The Audit is concerned that:

  • Female undergraduates are not being provided with the option to be placed with female mentors
  • The UNSW Lucy Mentoring Program has been largely discounted as a template for the ADFA program due to a misperception that this is an employment based scheme and therefore not applicable
  • There is a lack of regular and ongoing mentoring.

ADFA and the RIT have commented that it is not practical to provide mentors to over 1,000 undergraduates.33 However, the Recommendation states that undergraduates be offered a mentor. The Audit does not anticipate that everyone would take up such an opportunity.

Further, according to the Recommendation, female undergraduates should be given the option to be placed with female mentors. The Audit does not consider that it is impractical to offer each female undergraduate a female mentor. According to data provided to the Audit, in 2011 women comprised approximately 21% of the ADFA undergraduate population. In 2011, there were 75 female undergraduates in first year, 71 in second year, 53 in third year and 26 female advanced students.34 Given that not every female will necessarily take up the opportunity, and in light of these relatively low numbers, ADFA may be able to offer female undergraduates the opportunity to be placed with a female mentor. ADFA may also wish to consider a more targeted approach whereby only particular year groups are selected for a mentoring program.

The Recommendation also states that workplace-based mentoring programs targeting women that operate through universities, including UNSW, should be considered as a useful template. ADFA has examined the UNSW Lucy Mentoring Program and has considered its application to ADFA.35 While ADFA has drawn on some of the applicable parts, it has dismissed large parts of the template on the basis that the program is too focused on employment opportunities and therefore not relevant to ADFA given that undergraduates are already employed by Defence. However, the stated aims of the Lucy Program do not include finding employment for the mentees. The objectives are focused on diversity of opportunities, the advantages of job satisfaction, providing an opportunity to work with senior women and encouraging active decision making.36

The focus of the ADFA analysis is on barriers to implementation without adequately addressing the similarities and the extent to which the program may be applicable.37 ADFA could also seek guidance from other external workplace-based mentoring programs that operate.

While not explicitly stated in the Recommendation, the ADFA Report notes that “[i]n summary, cadets would benefit from regular mentoring and advice.”38 In contrast, the options for a new mentoring program involve either a three day series of visits or an annual event neither of which are based on regular mentoring.

The Audit reinforces the importance of the ongoing nature of mentoring.39 In line with the intent of the Recommendation, the chosen option and other existing mentoring options should facilitate ongoing and regular mentoring for undergraduates.

Existing squadron mentoring program

While not part of the Recommendation itself, the existing squadron mentoring program was discussed in the ADFA Report. This is an existing mentoring system which pairs senior and junior undergraduates in semi-formal situations.40 The first problem with this mentoring program became apparent during the Review in a focus group where an undergraduate commented:

they haven’t really put you with people you have anything in common with. They’re not necessarily people in your Service or your degree or maybe your sport or something like that like where it would be good if you know, you had an engineer with an engineer.41

Undergraduates also commented that mentoring did not occur on a frequent enough basis such that sufficiently deep relationships could be formed. For example, the Audit heard:

The mentoring program this year is a bit of a waste of time ...we’ve only seen them, associated with them maybe...four or five times. So we don’t really even know them, so it’s not like you actually talk to them about anything personal.42

It was noted in the ADFA Report that this mentoring program is ‘very new and requires close monitoring in order to ensure that it achieves its intended purposes.’43 Despite the problems associated with the matching process being raised in the ADFA Report and the Review’s accompanying comments that this needs to be addressed and monitored, the Audit was frequently told that this process remained deficient. For example, the Audit heard that for some squadrons the ‘mentor group is based on your room number’44 with no reference to the degree stream of the undergraduates. As stated in a focus group:

We have nothing in common in terms of our degree or career...And so if I have an issue... if I have a question about something, I’m not likely to go ask him because he’s not going to be able to help me...So maybe when you do the mentor structuring, structure it a little better, so stick art students with art students and engineers with engineers.45

However, other squadrons did respond to undergraduate feedback. For example:

in our second year we were part of a mentor group... and they were all mixed around and we didn’t really have anything in common... Then this year they moved the mentor groups [to] degree streams first, because they asked everyone for their opinion of what they’d prefer. They went to degree stream and then tried to match the Services. So I’m pretty lucky.46

The Audit requested documentation in respect of the matching process and was advised that ‘this year [2013] all squadrons have aligned mentors with degree streams.’47 The Audit supports this development.

It is suggested that the matching process for the mentoring program be closely monitored and adjusted in line with both undergraduate feedback and good practice.

Recommendation 18: As part of the ADF’s overall review of alcohol, ADFA:

  1. review the pricing regime of drinks in the cadets’ mess to minimise the risks associated with over consumption of alcohol
  2. ensure ongoing regular alcohol testing of cadets as provided by Defence Instruction (General) Personnel 15-4 Alcohol Testing in the Australian Defence Force.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review found that there is a culture of regular and heavy alcohol use among the ADFA undergraduate body. As demonstrated by wider research, excessive alcohol consumption is an established risk factor for a range of inappropriate behaviours.48

Implementation actions

In direct response to part a) of the Recommendation, the Audit has been provided with evidence that the pricing regime has been reviewed and drink prices have been increased.49

The prices have been amended to make them more consistent with the ‘standard mark up and pricing regime of most Defence Messes.’50 The documents indicate that in April 2012 an initial price increase was implemented,51 while a further increase was scheduled to be implemented in February 2013. This further increase means that the cost of beer is approximately 20% higher than the prices prior to the initial increase and the cost of pre-mixed drinks will have increased approximately 25%.52

In response to part b) of the Recommendation, the approach undertaken by ADFA concentrated on three main areas:

  • Increasing the use of alcohol testing
  • Reviewing the areas in which alcohol testing can be conducted
  • Increasing and maintaining the number of qualified testers and the testing devices.53

As part of the holistic approach to alcohol management54 ADFA has also revamped YOFT presentations and staff training on the use of alcohol. In line with the intent of the Recommendation ADFA has also undertaken other measures including:55

  • Reinforcing alcohol policy through the Commandant ADFA’s Alcohol Directive regarding the use, supply, and management of alcohol56
  • Increased emphasis on alcohol education, including new alcohol consumption and management training in the ADFA Citizenship Package57
  • Development and display of posters reinforcing the importance of the responsible consumption of alcohol58
  • Banning of drinks with high alcohol, caffeine or guarana content59
  • Undergraduates have undertaken steps to clarify how to manage intoxicated persons, including creation of an ‘Actions on Suspected Intoxicated Person’ flowchart and ‘ACM Bar Incident Log’60
  • Direct liaison with local nightclub and hotel managers
  • Direct liaison with ACT Beat Police
  • Liaison with the Australian Drug Foundation – Good Host and Good Sports programs.

Audit findings

Recommendation 18 a)

This holistic approach to alcohol management at ADFA is vital in achieving meaningful change in the use of alcohol. The comprehensive approach outlined above and the steps implemented evidence a concerted effort on the part of ADFA to address the problem of excessive alcohol consumption.61

Prices have been reviewed and most have been increased. Whether this measure in and of itself minimises risk is still open to question and should be carefully monitored.

This is particularly important in light of undergraduate and staff comments during the Audit’s consultations at ADFA. The Audit commonly heard that the price changes are ineffective because undergraduates are paid highly and have few expenses, which means they are able to easily afford the higher prices. The Audit was told that

you could charge [undergraduates] $10 a beer, they’d still have enough money to get drunk.62

The increase in price hasn’t really changed it that much. They’ve increased it, but we’re all on a decent salary here.63

Further, the Audit heard that price changes do not necessarily address the problem as undergraduates will choose to drink alcohol off base where their drinking is more difficult to monitor or supervise. For example, the Audit heard that:

One of those unintended consequences is that people drink outside the Academy and then you’re not really under the supervision of all the security people that they have around, and staff.64

Increasing the alcohol prices at the messes doesn’t make any huge difference because it just pushes the problem elsewhere because [city establishments] will then lower their prices and have happy hour so they all go there first.65

While the Audit commends ADFA on its comprehensive response to this issue, ADFA should continue to monitor whether the increased prices are minimising risks associated with over consumption of alcohol and develop further strategies if required.

Recommendation 18 b)

Prior to 2011 alcohol testing was conducted infrequently however in 2012 ADFA increased testing to a level that is unparalleled in previous years.

The increase in alcohol testing is significant as shown by these figures:

  • 2010 – 28 Targeted tests66
  • 2011 – 824 Random and Targeted tests
  • 2012 – 5,006 Random and Targeted tests.67

This increase in testing is clear demonstration of ADFA’s commitment to this issue and has been noted by undergraduates and staff.68

The Audit heard that alcohol testing statistics are now being recorded by Service and Year.69 Comprehensively recording such information provides great benefit to alcohol management at ADFA and should be maintained.

Related to the increased frequency of testing, ADFA has:

  • increased the number of qualified alcohol testers from 7 to 24
  • increased the number of testing devices from 2 to 770
  • reviewed and widened the area in which testing may be conducted.71

These are essential ingredients of a comprehensive testing regime.

As part of the alcohol management program at ADFA, there is now ‘a single coordinator for the program which ensures the program is managed and remains active.’72 This ongoing management is of critical importance to ensure that testing does not regress to the figures in 2010, either due to lack of will or by neglect.73

In respect of the number of staff qualified to conduct alcohol testing, while the number as at 3 September 2012 was 24, at the end of 2011 there were only two.74 The number of qualified testers must therefore be monitored to ensure that testing can be adequately conducted. The Audit has been advised that the ‘plan at ADFA is to have all Divisional NCOs qualified as testers.’75 As mentioned above, the appointment of a coordinator will ensure the consistency of the testing program.

The Audit has encountered some difficulty in determining the exact number and details of positive results for tests conducted in 2012 and in previous years. The results are stored as hard copies and in a format such that ‘extraction into a useful readable format would be extremely time consuming.’76 The Audit was advised that ‘a non-identifying spreadsheet could be developed and maintained with minimal overhead once established.’77 Recording the information in a manner that is easily accessible and in a way which lends itself to analysis and reporting will strengthen ADFA’s ability to combat excessive consumption of alcohol and develop plans to address trends as patterns emerge from the data.78

The Audit has been advised that the positive readings as at September 2012 were less than 1% of those tested.79 While less than 1% is a low reading in percentage terms, in over 5,000 tests the raw number of undergraduates who tested positive is significant.

Presentations

ADFA has implemented enhanced training on drugs and alcohol for staff and undergraduates during staff induction and YOFT. The training is predominately delivered by the coordinator, referred to above, who is aware of the risks of excessive consumption of alcohol at ADFA and the connection with unacceptable behaviour.80 These sessions, and the quality of the presenter, indicate that ADFA is committed to vigorously addressing these issues and the Audit congratulates ADFA on these efforts.

Conclusion

ADFA has undertaken substantial work in response to Recommendation 16. ADFA facilitated a comprehensive feasibility study which developed and explored options for a single Service work placement for all Services. However, each Service decided not to implement any of the options developed on the basis that they were not feasible.

The feasibility study also addressed parts b) and c) of the Recommendation. The Services decided not to amend the minimum entry age due to negative consequences for recruitment. The Audit recommends that the ADF and ADFA develop other means by which the intent of this Recommendation can be achieved.

The Services initially dismissed the prospect of undertaking steps to explore different recruitment options which recognise the different life courses of men and women however after consultation with the Audit, the RIT is exploring further options.

ADFA has undertaken substantial work in examining existing mentoring programs and developing options for a new mentoring program. However a new mentoring program has not yet been implemented and no timetable for implementation has been provided. The Audit suggests that further work is required in this area to meet the intent of the Recommendation.

The Audit congratulates ADFA on its comprehensive and holistic approach to addressing excessive consumption of alcohol. The pricing regime has been reviewed and prices have increased. ADFA has also significantly increased the level of alcohol testing. A coordinator has been appointed and informative, targeted presentations have been delivered on this topic for both staff and undergraduates. The Audit suggests that ADFA continue to examine and monitor the link between excessive consumption of alcohol and unacceptable behaviours and further develop its excellent work in this critical area.


  1. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 90. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  2. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 89-90. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  3. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 91. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Risk Taking by Young People’, Australian Social Trends, cat no 4120.0 (2008), www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter5002008 (viewed 26 August 2011); J Norris, ‘The Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Sexual Victimization’ (2008) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, pp 1-13. At www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_AlcVictimization.pdf (viewed 26 August 2011); A Morgan and A McAtamney, ‘Key Issues in alcohol-related violence’ (2009) 4 Research in Practice 1, pp 1-8. At Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 92. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013). In addition, this research was important given the empirical findings, namely that inexpensive prices of alcohol drinks coupled with undergraduates’ high disposable income was cited by numerous consultation participants as a contributor to excessive alcohol use. The need to address this culture is of primary importance as it occurs at a formative period for undergraduates, at a time when drinking behaviours can become established.
  5. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  6. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  7. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  8. To assist each Service with costing, a template was developed which included each of these core requirements. This template was then sent to the relevant representatives from each Service to be completed. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  9. Office of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, ‘Minute, Action Emanating from Review into Treatment of Women at ADFA (‘Broderick Review’ Phase One) – Recommendation 16’, VCDF/OUT/2012/77, 18 March 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  10. While the Recommendation did not mandate that the academic program be shortened to cater for the single Service program, the Services decided that the overall length that undergraduates spend at ADFA was not to be increased. See Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  11. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  12. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  13. Dr S Mugford, ‘A suggestion around alternative entry because of life course differences’, provided to the Audit by S Mugford, 13 February 2013.
  14. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012. While the document itself may have been completed in November 2012, the length is misleading as this includes the time after the recommendations were submitted to the relevant Chiefs and decisions had been made. For example, the Audit has been provided with the decision from the Chief of Navy which is dated 17 August 2012.
  15. For example, throughout the feasibility study the costs associated with a new contract for a compressed UNSW degree are overplayed. When addressing the cost of the compressed degree, the relevant cost is the amount that is in addition to the current contractual cost however the cost is often noted as being the entire amount. That is, the current cost plus the additional cost. The effect of this is that the compressed degree is made to appear substantially more expensive than the reality. See Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  16. Despite the placement options not being implemented, having consulted with staff and undergraduates who live and work at ADFA there is a widespread belief that undergraduates would benefit greatly from a program similar to NOYO. This belief extends to any other factors which might increase their age or maturity, as commented by an academic staff member, ‘Now you can’t make a gap year compulsory, but I wish we could, because it would do a lot of them the world of good.’ Focus group S1, Staff male and female, 17 October 2012.
  17. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  18. These include: improved methods of instruction in conjunction with an adolescent learning strategy, improved equity and diversity training, improved guidance and training on the use of social media and acceptable use of alcohol, and development of a sexual ethics program.
  19. These include: continued emphasis on the deliberate selection and positing prioritisation of Army instructors to ADFA, reintroduction of the Guidance Officer Scheme, improved student to instructor ratios, and a pilot program to allow some students to conduct the first year of their degree at a civilian university.
  20. Department of Defence, ‘COSC Agendum Paper 76 of 2012 – Update on Australian Defence College’s Actions Emanating from ‘Pathway to Change’: Evolving Defence Culture’, 10 December 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 26 February 2013.
  21. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  22. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  23. Dr P Helson, ‘Australian Defence College, Review Implementation Team, Single Service Training and Work Placement Feasibility Study’, provided to the Audit by S Longbottom, 17 December 2012.
  24. Dr S Mugford, ‘A suggestion around alternative entry because of life course differences’, provided to the Audit by Dr S Mugford, 13 February 2013.
  25. ADFA and the ADF should continue to develop options which involve flexibility and take into consideration life differentials. For example, the ADF currently has a program ‘Defence University Sponsorship’ in which university students who have completed a specified portion of their engineering or health degree are eligible to be sponsored by the ADF for the remainder of the degree. Following completion, the sponsored individual undergoes initial officer training with service obligations for the number of years that the member was sponsored plus an additional year, with a minimum of three years. This type of program addresses life course differentials and the Audit encourages ADFA to continue to develop options along these lines. Department of Defence, Defence University Sponsorship, http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/education/universitysponsorship/ (viewed 14 March 2013); email from P O’Neill to S Mugford, 20 February 2012, provided to the Audit by S Mugford, 20 February 2013.
  26. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  27. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  28. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  29. Some of the core objectives outlined in the mentoring brief include providing an opportunity for female undergraduates to see and talk to women who have reached senior leadership positions, gain answers to relevant questions and learn strategies and tactics that work for women, gain confidence and resilience, gain insights into common themes, motivate female cadets to work through challenges that they will face, and to build relationships and develop useful networks. The program is focused on showing female undergraduates how women in male dominated industries can achieve senior leadership positions. See RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  30. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  31. RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  32. In respect of the current status of the mentoring programs, during discussions with Dr N Miller of the RIT it was noted that scheduling difficulties have delayed implementation.
  33. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’ Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 12 November 2012. The documents also comment that this was agreed by Commissioner Broderick.
  34. Australian Defence Force Academy, ‘Task 100 and task 80 Amended ADFA Cadet and Women intake stats (2001-2011) verified with annual reports’, provided to the Review as part of Phase One of the Report.
  35. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012. Similarly, the ADFA Strategic Communication Plan states that ‘ADFA is also exploring a range of other options for expanding mentoring opportunities for midshipmen and officer cadets including various mentoring programs in Australian universities’. RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’ Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 12 November 2012.
  36. Office for Women’s Policy, ‘The Premier’s Lucy Mentoring Program, Participant Manual’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  37. For example, the ADFA mentoring brief comments that ADFA ‘has both similarities and differences to NSW universities’ but then only outlines the key differences. RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  38. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 92 At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  39. While not forming a significant part of option one, the mentoring brief does briefly note that these senior women ‘have agreed to be available for the longer term, should individual cadets, or a group of cadets wish to engage with them.’ See RIT, ‘ADFA Mentoring Brief’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  40. Pursuant to the Kafer Review, CDRE BJ Kafer, Report of the Review of the Australian Defence force Academy Military Organisation and Culture, Australian Defence Force Academy 2010 1104615/1, and as part of the cadet squadron restructure this mentoring program was established.
  41. Cadet Focus Group in Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 15. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  42. Interview 13, Army undergraduate male, 15 October 2012.
  43. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 16. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  44. Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
  45. Focus group U2, Navy undergraduate, 17 October 2012.
  46. Focus group U2, Navy undergraduate, 17 October 2012.
  47. Request for information sent by Audit on 11 December 2012. Response received from Dr N Miller, email to the Audit containing response from CMDR S Craig, 20 February 2013.
  48. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Risk Taking by Young People’, Australian Social Trends, cat no 4120.0 (2008), www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter5002008 (viewed 26 August 2011); J Norris, ‘The Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Sexual Victimization’ (2008) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, pp 1-13. At www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_AlcVictimization.pdf (viewed 26 August 2011); A Morgan and A McAtamney, ‘Key Issues in alcohol-related violence’ (2009) 4 Research in Practice 1, pp 1-8. In Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 92. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013). The need to address the excessive consumption of alcohol at ADFA is of primary importance as it occurs at a formative period for undergraduates, at a time when drinking behaviours can become established.
  49. RIT, ‘Minute, Review of Drinks Pricing’, RIT/ALC/2012/9/27(1), provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012; RIT, ‘Audit Drinks Price Comparison’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  50. RIT, ‘Minute, Review of Drinks Pricing’, RIT/ALC/2012/9/27(1), provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012. With respect to the reasons for the price changes, the drinks pricing minute notes that the majority of drinks consumed were beers and premixed drinks, and that these ‘were being sold at or below cost price’ and ‘below the standard Defence Mess pricing regime of a 15% mark up.’
  51. RIT, ‘Minute, Review of Drinks Pricing’, RIT/ALC/2012/9/27(1), provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012. In April 2012 the following price changes were implemented:
    • Average price increase of 12% for beers
    • Average price increase of 9% for premixed drinks
    • Average price decrease of 19% for wines.
  52. RIT, ‘Minute, Review of Drinks Pricing’, RIT/ALC/2012/9/27(1), provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.
  53. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  54. ADFA has been the subject of a number of reviews, most relevant to this Recommendation is the Hamilton Review. While the Review’s Recommendation in respect of alcohol focused on the pricing and testing of alcohol, the Recommendation was intended as part of a broader holistic approach to the management of alcohol at ADFA. Prof. M Hamilton, The Use of Alcohol in the Australian Defence Force (2011). At http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/useofalcohol/index.htm (viewed 15 March 2013).
  55. Other measures implemented include:

Alcohol Risk Management Plans are to be developed for activities involving alcohol. See RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; CDRE BJ Kafer, ‘Commandant’s Directive 5/12 – Use, Supply and Management of Alcohol by Defence Personnel Under My Command/Supervision and in The Australian Defence Force Academy Precinct’, Department of Defence, May 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.

Investigating and taking steps to achieve Good Hosts accreditation. See ‘RFI 3.75 Response’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012; Australian Drug Foundation, ‘Hospitality Management Program – Timelines and Actions Required Oct-Dec 2012’ provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.

In addition to staff being trained in the Responsible Service of Alcohol, selected undergraduates have been trained and are involved in monitoring consumption of alcohol in the Cadets’ Mess. See RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’, Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 November 2012; RIT, ‘Cultural Change Management at Australian Defence Force Academy’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.

Staff training includes not glorifying the use of alcohol. See CDRE BJ Kafer, ‘Commandant’s Directive 5/12 – Use, Supply and Management of Alcohol by Defence Personnel Under My Command/Supervision and in The Australian Defence Force Academy Precinct’, Department of Defence, May 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.

Additional alcohol requirements have been implemented, such as to requirements to serve food at events involving alcohol, to offer non-alcoholic drink options, to offer low alcohol percentage drinks at a lower price, and a drink ticket system for events involving alcohol. See CDRE BJ Kafer, ‘Commandant’s Directive 5/12 – Use, Supply and Management of Alcohol by Defence Personnel Under My Command/Supervision and in The Australian Defence Force Academy Precinct’, Department of Defence, May 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.

As outlined in the Academy Cadets’ Mess Alcohol Management Plan, undergraduates have undertaken steps to clarify how to manage intoxicated persons, including creation of an ‘Actions on Suspected Intoxicated Person’ flowchart and ‘ACM Bar Incident Log’. See ‘Academy Cadets’ Mess Constitution and Rules’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.

  1. CDRE BJ Kafer, ‘Commandant’s Directive 5/12 – Use, Supply and Management of Alcohol by Defence Personnel Under My Command/Supervision and in The Australian Defence Force Academy Precinct’, Department of Defence, May 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  2. RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’, Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 November 2012.
  3. RIT, ‘Cultural Change Management at Australian Defence Force Academy’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ADFA, ‘Our Commitment to Responsible Alcohol Use’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  4. RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’, Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 November 2012.
  5. ‘Academy Cadets’ Mess Constitution and Rules’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.
  6. While these measures do address the intent of the Recommendation, the focus of the Audit is the direct implementation of Recommendation 18.
  7. Interview 12, Army staff male, 15 October 2012.
  8. Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
  9. Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
  10. Focus group S11, Mixed Service staff male and female, 18 October 2012.
  11. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 19. In http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  12. Email correspondence between P Wetherspoon, S Craig and P O’Neill September 2012, provided to the Audit by P O’Neil, 13 December 2012; ADFA, Drugs and Alcohol presentation, 21 January 2012. The Audit notes that the alcohol testing program also ensures the testing of staff at ADFA. Staff are tested in the same manner that undergraduates are which is important for undergraduates to witness.
  13. Some staff were able to compare the current testing regime with their experiences when they came through ADFA as a cadet. One staff member commented ‘that’s certainly a level of testing that I’ve not seen anywhere else in Defence and certainly wasn’t prevalent here when I was coming through.’ The Audit also attended a series of presentations during the ASIT and IPC training and the mandatory training in January 2013. During the presentation on drugs and alcohol it was commented in respect of alcohol testing that ‘last year we went over the top to put the idea in their heads and over the next six months it is important to cement this. After which the first years and those coming in will not know any differently.’ Interview 12, Army staff male, 15 October 2012; ADFA, Drugs and Alcohol presentation, 21 January 2013.
  14. ADFA, Drugs and Alcohol presentation, 21 January 2013.
  15. RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’, Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 November 2012.
  16. RIT, ‘Response to RFI 3.76’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.
  17. Email correspondence between P Wetherspoon, S Craig and P O’Neill September 2012, provided to the Audit by P O’Neil, 13 December 2012.
  18. As previously outlined, the frequency of testing has increased from just 28 in 2010, to 824 in 2011 and to over 5,000 in 2012. While the increase is significant, the Recommendation requires testing to be administered consistently in line with DIG 15-4. The challenge will be to ensure that testing is consistently undertaken at required levels and does not return to pre-review levels in the future.
  19. RIT, ‘Response to RFI 3.76’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.
  20. RIT, ‘Response to RFI 3.76’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.
  21. RIT, ‘Response to RFI 3.76’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012.
  22. Email correspondence between P Wetherspoon, S Craig and P O’Neill September 2012, provided to the Audit by P O’Neil, 13 December 2012.
  23. The Audit notes ADFA’s policy in respect of additional follow-up testing for undergraduates who record a positive reading. An internal ADFA email provided to the Audit containing a break-down of positive readings notes ‘Repeat Offender’ next to one of the entries, which is of clear importance in tracking and monitoring problematic alcohol use. A database which makes such information easily accessible would benefit ADFA’s alcohol management program. Email correspondence between P Wetherspoon, S Craig and P O’Neill September 2012, provided to the Audit by P O’Neil, 13 December 2012.
  24. RIT, ‘Response to RFI 3.76’, provided to the Audit by P O’Neill, 13 December 2012; Email correspondence between P Wetherspoon, S Craig and P O’Neill September 2012, provided to the Audit by P O’Neil, 13 December 2012; RIT, ‘Communication Plan: Communicating Cultural Change’ Annex F, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 12 November 2012.
  25. P Wetherspoon, presentation at Staff Training, 16 January 2013 and 21 January 2013; Keep Your Mates Safe presentation, 19 February 2013.